Question

man whose gift lay in new directions should measure up or down to stereotyped and fossilized standards. for all of this there can be only hearty praise. but this does not in the least mean that the extremists whose paintings and pictures were represented are entitled to any praise, save, perhaps, that they have helped to break fetters. probably in any reform movement, any progressive movement, in any field of life, the penalty for avoiding the commonplace is a liability to extravagance. it is vitally necessary to move forward and to shake off the dead hand, often the fossilized dead hand, of the reactionaries; and yet we have to face the fact that there is apt to be a lunatic fringe reread the final paragraph of the passage, on pages 6-7. which premise does this paragraph most support? anytime people engage in progressive change, there are bound to be individuals who take things too far. whenever people create something positive, there are those who will try to destroy it. leaders of any new social movement should make sure that those who represent the movement conform to certain ideals. when it comes to art, works that are appealing to some people seem extremely ugly to others.

Explanation:

The final paragraph praises progressive change away from outdated standards, but notes that in any progressive/reform movement, there is an "extremist" or "lunatic fringe" that goes to excessive lengths (only meriting praise for breaking old boundaries, not their work itself). This directly aligns with the idea that progressive change brings individuals who take things too far. The other options do not match: the text does not mention people trying to destroy positive creation, leaders enforcing ideals for movement representatives, or subjective perceptions of art ugliness.

Answer:

Anytime people engage in progressive change, there are bound to be individuals who take things too far.